Banned Books Week: And Tango Makes Three

I finished my two books for Banned Books Week earlier than I thought, so now I'll have more than one post in a day.  It's an Autumn miracle!


I read And Tango Makes Three and The Giver for Banned Books Week.  I'll start with And Tango Makes Three, and then I'll do a separate post on The Giver.

Photo courtesy of Goodreads.com

And Tango Makes Three is a children's picture book by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, and is illustrated by Henry Cole.  It's a true story about two male penguins who loved each other and together they raised a baby penguin from egg to birth and beyond.  It was published in 2005 and has been on the American Library Association's Top Ten Most Frequently Challenged Books List for each year beginning with 2006, and every year it has been in the number one slot, except for 2009, when it fell to number two.  The reasons that this book has been challenged have been listed on ALA's website as "unsuited to age group," "sexism," "anti-ethnic," "religious viewpoint," "anti-family," and "homosexuality."  Let's take these one-by-one, shall we?  Oy, this is going to turn into one of my infamous soapbox rants.  


So we'll start off with "unsuited to age group."  I'm not sure what the exact target age is for this book, but it's a children's picture book, so we'll say, um, birth to 8 and be generous?  I mean, kids don't actually read until they're 4 or 5 (unless parents do that Baby Can Read thing, which is a topic for another post, I think), but parents read to them.  And although I don't really read anything other than board books to my two-year-old son (he tears up the pages otherwise), many parents read these books to kids at all early ages, even while they're in the womb.  And by the time kids are 7 or 8 they're on to chapter books, I think.  I'm not sure exactly how this goes.  Give me a few years and I'll see what happens with my own son.  But anyway, it's a book for kids.  And yes, I can see how sexuality is not a subject that you really want to teach your kids until they're older.  But you can teach them about love, right?  Kids are taught about boys and girls liking each other, and thinking the other is cute; all that stuff is taught without a thought at a young age.  All that simply has to be said to teach homosexuality at a young age is that some boys like boys and some girls like girls.  Lots of people talk about the horrors of children learning about homosexuality in schools at a young age, and they always seem to think that this kind of talk has to include information about sex itself.  Sex doesn't come into the teaching of heterosexuality at a young age, so why should it come into the conversation when talking about homosexuality?  Besides, this book says nothing about the reproductive cycle except that the male and female penguin couples had babies of their own and Roy and Silo (the two male penguins) didn't, so their keeper gave them an egg to care for when it couldn't be cared for by its own parents.  I don't think this book is unsuited for the age group at all.


Next, "sexism."  How in the world is this sexist?  No, really, someone read this book and tell me how it's sexist.  I really don't know how it could be considered sexist.


As for "anti-ethnic," I really don't know what they're going with here.  There were people of all colors illustrated in this book as going to the zoo to see the animals.  I mean, there was only one type of penguin in the book, chinstrap penguins, but surely these people aren't claiming that it was anti-ethnic because there was only one kind of penguin represented?  I really don't know what anti-ethnic means, either.  But I found a funny blog post while looking this up:  And Tango Makes Three: anti-ethnic penguins?  They don't seem to know what it means, either.


"Religious viewpoint" is the next reason that this book has been challenged.  Now, does that mean that the book has an offensive religious viewpoint, or that the person who is challenging the book is saying that it is offensive to their own religious viewpoint?  It has to be the latter, because this book has no mention of religion in it whatsoever.  So I guess this person is basically saying that it has homosexuality in it, which is against their religious viewpoint.  Newsflash, people.  It's a free country.  And freedom of religion is one of the major freedoms in America.  Freedom to be whichever religion you wish, or to have no religion at all.  Your religion does not make the rules of this country.  No religion does.  So therefore, a book that does not go along with your religious viewpoint isn't going to be banned for that reason.  Sorry.


Moving on to "anti-family."  I wrote a whole post on this a year ago, aptly called Soapbox Rant.  Basically I talked about how many politicians talk about "family values" as if their opponents, or people in the other political party (they're Republicans talking about Democrats, mostly) don't have any type of family values.  It's quite ridiculous.  Just because some people don't limit a "family" to a marriage of one man and one woman and their biological children doesn't mean they don't have a sense of what family is, and it definitely doesn't mean that they don't have morals.  And Tango Makes Three is all about family.  It's about a not-so-typical penguin family, but the overwhelming, blatant theme in the book is family.  So this reason for challenging the book does not make sense at all.


And finally, we have "homosexuality."  Yep.  They're homosexual penguins.  So this reason makes sense, but I still think it's wrong.  First of all, banning books is wrong.  Decide for yourself what you want to read to your children.  If you don't like it, don't read it, and don't let your kids read it.  Second of all, the fact that something contains homosexuality does not make it bad.  You disagree with homosexuality?  I think you're going to have to get over it, because it's not going away.

Deep breath, rant over.  And Tango Makes Three is a sweet story about family and love.  The illustrations are cute, and the story itself is warm and fuzzy.  The fact that it is a true story makes it all the more wonderful.  I, for one, think we need more books like this for children, and I will definitely be reading it to my son (once he gets over that whole tearing-book-pages thing).

Soapbox Rant

So my challenge kind of fell by the wayside this Labor Day weekend. Instead of giving up, I'm just going to pick back up where I left off. Write Every Day.

I think I may get up on my soapbox for a minute. I'm really tired of all the hatred in this country these days. I realize there were times in the history of the United States where there was more hatred floating around, but I feel like we have evolved, learned, and become a better country. So why all the hatred?

All these people speak of "family values." Here's the problem: not everyone has the same definition of family. I have this old, 1974 edition of The Merriam-Webster Dictionary that used to be my mom's, which I use often. Here's the definition of family found there:

fam•i•ly \'fam-(ə-)lē\ n, pl -lies 1: a group of persons of common ancestry: CLAN 2: a group of individuals living under one roof and under one head: HOUSEHOLD 3: a social group composed of parents and their children 4: a group of related persons, lower animals or plants; also : a group of things having common characteristics

So, yes, this is a major definition of family. But it seems like, these days, most people automatically think of a family unit comprised of a mother and a father and children. But the thing is, that is only one type of family unit. There are families comprised of divorced parents, families where one or both of the divorced parents have remarried, families where there is only one parent (whether by neglect on one parent's side or by death), and blended families with children from each previous marriage. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are families with adopted children and foster children. There are families of married couples with no children. There are extended families, grandparents who move in with their adult children, grandparents or aunts or uncles that take care of the children. Cousins living in the same house. Children who have had both parents die, who are living with people who are not blood relatives, but godparents or friends of their parents, whom they had maybe never met but are now family. And then there are the controversial ones: the unwed mothers and unmarried couples living together with or without children, couples of mixed races, and the homosexual couples with or without children. I'm sure I've forgotten someone.

Another way to look at it is to think of yourself. How did you define your family as you've grown? As a baby, most likely your only family was you, your parents and your siblings. Maybe a few close grandparents or other family. As you got older, your aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. came into the mix. You may have lost a family member or two or more. Then as you become a young adult, you may view your family as separate from you as you venture out on your own. Your parents may become extended family, especially if you find a spouse or partner. If you have children, you now become the adult in the family unit, and your whole perspective of family may change. As your own children grow and find their own spouses and have their own children, your view of family may change even more. If you do not have any children, grandchildren, etc., your view of family may stay the same as it was when you were a child, might include a spouse or partner, or it might simply be just you.

Then there are the changing roles of everyone in the family. You start out being a child, a sister, a brother, a niece, a nephew, a cousin, a grandchild. You may grow to be an aunt, an uncle, a mother, a father, a grandparent, a great aunt, a great uncle. Within those roles, you are expected to act a different way. And these expectations change with the times. Mothers were, until quite recently (and in some places, still are), expected to do all of the housework, do the child rearing, and abstain from working outside the home. I am a stay-at-home mom, but I think that I am a minority in that respect.

Then you have different cultures that come into play.

My point is, when people realize that every family unit is different, and that everyone views family differently, and that the roles of family are always changing, you can't expect everyone's "family values" to be the same. Where I live, though, it seems like this term means putting family and Christian faith first. It means that if you have "family values," you are pro-life and conservative and a Christian. Now, I know this is a generalization and that not everyone may feel this way. But it seems to me that this is what politicians, at least in my state and a few nearby, mean when they say "family values." It's like saying that you don't value your family if you don't agree with these viewpoints. They speak of morality, and I think they also don't understand that everyone has different morals, along with different "family values." Yes, we all know that murder is bad. Yes, we all know that slavery is wrong. Yes, we've all been taught the golden rule. But I also thought that, at least in America, we've kind of come to the conclusion that hate is wrong. That prejudice is wrong. That all men (and women) are created equal.

I have a son, and I plan on raising him right. Or what I think is right, which, in my state, might be considered wrong. I will raise him to be kind to his fellow humans. I will teach him to respect his elders, to be polite, and to not hurt anyone. I will raise him to be kind to animals. I will raise him to try to put himself into the shoes of others, to try and understand why people do the things that they do, rather than condemning their actions. I will raise him to understand that men and women are equal. That no one is superior to anyone else, whether you are white, black, brown, American, Mexican, British, Iraqi, Chinese, Korean, Pakistani, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, tall, short, thin, fat, pretty, ugly, straight, gay, bisexual, transsexual, rich, poor, male, female, Republican, or Democrat. He will learn that we are all human. We are all equal, and, in America, we all have the same rights and should all have the same opportunities. I will teach him, that, above all else, kindness is the highest virtue. I will not teach him to be intolerant. I will not teach him to hate.